<p>@marite
Not all comers, they still have to make it through the admissions process!
But I do know that if I am accepted at a 40,000+ a year institution my upper middle class parents will be struggling to pay for it. I'm not talking Constitutional law (that thing, though a remarkable document should in no way be the final word on rights).</p>
<p>@mini
But Harvard is the perfect example on where it can start. It already has the means through alumni donations and its massive endowment to provide it free without any sort of government intervention. While I'm no libertarian I still tend to believe that when something can be accomplished without the government it should be. State universities could be free with higher taxes, but still there are some who want the elite education as can be seen by the many students who turn down a full ride at a state University, even at a place like U of Michigan, to attend Harvard. And even some state universities, specifically UMich and the UT system, have endowments that are approaching the size where they can substantially slash tuition if not totally eliminating it (I'm not sure of the numbers here please don't jump on me if I'm wrong, but I think both schools have endowments that are $4 billion plus).
On Berea, what are the numbers for median income of their graduates? Maybe the families of the accepted students are poor, but the students are probably earning much more after graduation, and hopefully donating it too. Berea's endowment is $800 million too, nothing to pooh pooh.</p>
<p>@Wisteria
Okay you got me there, but I think you can still see my point that just because someone could pay for something doesn't mean they should be forced to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I do know that if I am accepted at a 40,000+ a year institution my upper middle class parents will be struggling to pay for it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So? What has that to do with Harvard (or Yale or Princeton)? That's what state universities are for. Now if you said your parents made less than $40k, I would tell you about HFAI. My own upper middle class income is paying for my kids' education. That is as it should be.</p>
<p>No one "needs" a HYP education any more than they need a Coach handbag, a Rolex watch, or Vuitton luggage. Especially not with the quality of the knock-offs these days....;)</p>
<p>(It's nice when they give away some free samples, or discount a few, which helps their prestige immensely, because it makes much larger numbers of people aware of what they are missing.)</p>
<p>But I tend to think that money should not be a factor once you are accepted. No one who is accepted to Harvard should be forced to decline attending because of financial reasons. They say 100% of need is met, but so often that still puts a huge financial strain on the family.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one who is accepted to Harvard should be forced to decline attending because of financial reasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? I have refrained from buying a Cartier watch because of cost considerations. My watch costs a grand total of $20 and runs quite well, thank you. </p>
<p>Anyone who can be admitted into Harvard probably can get admitted at some other college with merit aid. I suggest you search the archives for Evil Robot's posts. He was admitted to Yale in 2004 but went to Vanderbilt because it offered him more financial aid. He is very happy at Vandy. There are lots of great colleges out there, just as there are lots of watches.</p>
<p>I think they are called Frette and Pratesi.:) I know that because I read magazines at the dentist's :) S2 is re-using S1's X-long bedsheets (I can't remember which discount store I bought them at).</p>
<p>Thanks. I need some o' them ther' Fred and Parchesi's for my Christmas stocking. (though I don't HAVE a Christmas stocking, so I guess I'll have to settle for a lump of coal.)(I think I've just defined the difference between a "need" and a "want".) :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Education may or may not be a "fundamental" right (are we talking Constitutional law here?)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My understanding is that education is NOT fundamental - if a state chooses to provide education, then it must provide it equally.</p>
<p>I think the real issue is whether private institutions should be forced to do certain things - and my answer is NO, because they will cease to exist. Harvard doesn't have to be there. If the trustees got together and so agreed, they could probably dissolve it. </p>
<p>To me, education is like transportation. You can use the subsidized public transportation; you can walk or bike; you can drive a 14-year-old car; or you can have a shiny new BMW. Yes, you have a fundamental need to get to and from work - but you don't need the BMW. Saying Harvard should be free is like saying that Ford should give everyone Volvos, because we have a right to go to work and be safe when we do it. </p>
<p>I'm of the mindset that colleges are completely within their rights to charge students the full cost of their education and not give financial aid. (Whether or not this is in their best interests is, IMO, completely irrelevant to their right to do it.) They could say that their education costs $70,000/year, and they aren't going to subsidize a cent of it. Harvard probably still could fill its class several times over with talented students who would pay it.<br>
-> don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Even at "full tuition," the university is still subsidizing a lot of the cost of your education. Do you think Mercedes should subsidize the cost of your car, then give a bunch of them away for free? </p>
<p>"Financial aid" doesn't mean freedom from struggle. Why should only the upper-middle class types struggle and save to put their kids through? You're getting a $70,000/year education - why should that come easy? Imagine if you had to pay world-renowned scholars to tutor you and 30 of your friends for four years. How much would that cost?? </p>
<p>College is still a great deal. Even at full price, it's one of the best investments you can ever make - compare the cost/benefit with mutual funds or CDs.</p>
<p>"Do you think Mercedes should subsidize the cost of your car, then give a bunch of them away for free?"</p>
<p>If I own Mercedes stock, I darn well want them to. I can't maintain the prestige of the product any other way, or at least not as inexpensively.</p>
<p>Another thing; John Hechinger keeps saying in his Wall Street Journal article that Harvard is tax-exempt. While Harvard isn't legally required to pay taxes, it does make handsome annual donations to the city of Cambridge. Hechinger is being less than completely honest when he conveniently neglects to mention this fact.</p>
<p>But I tend to think that money should not be a factor once you are accepted. No one who is accepted to Harvard should be forced to decline attending because of financial reasons.</p>
<br>
<p>Very few people do.</p>
<p>Of those who are admitted to Harvard and turn it down (around 400 per year), around half choose schools that are just as expensive and calculate aid in the same way Harvard does, so finances were not the reason for the choice.</p>
<p>Which leaves only about 200 kids per year, about 10% of the admits, who turn Harvard down to accept full rides elsewhere. These kids are often not the poorest in the bunch -- the cost differential between Harvard and the merit-aid school is so great precisely because they come from families that could afford to pay. After all, Harvard is virtually free for kids who are truly poor.</p>
<p>So we're talking about, at most, a single-digit percentage of the potential class that misses out on Harvard because their parents won't/can't pay. I'd like to see that number reach zero, but as of right now, it's pretty close.</p>
<p>I know many students who turned down very fair scholarships at HYP because they got full rides somewhere else. Most college kids do some work (espoecially summers) as well as take out some loans to supplement their scholarship. There are not that many families who can afford to pay zero for college (it's not an unexpected expense). But many kids who get accepted to Harvard get accepted other places too. Last year our high school had two accepted who turned it down for full rides and special programs at Emory and UVA. But it isn't as if they couldn't have afforded Harvard, they just chose to take the full rides and no one would blame them. These are kids from middle class families - not poor children.</p>
<p>Precisely. The new(ish) "no-loan" policy at Princeton is directed at the 70% of students requiring financial aid with family incomes from $92k - $160k. These are the kids they fear losing to the Emorys, Vanderbilts, Washington U's of the world. And the new, what is essentially merit aid policy at Harvard (whereby students with family incomes below a certain amount paying nothing despite the fact that their EFC is not $0), is an attempt to keep them as well, once accepted. Both seem like reasonable policies to me (and don't, in fact, cost the schools very much.)</p>
<p>There might be a different way to look at the same numbers from Princeton. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>First, since 2001, the percentage of students needing aid has grown from 40 to 55%.</p></li>
<li><p>When looking at the class of 2009, 52% of the applicants who also applied for aid had income of less than $100,000. In answering their needs, Princeton allocated 76% of its targeted budget. In particular, it allocated 50% of the budget to the families with income of less than $60,000. On the other hand, to the group with income of 120,000 and above, Princeton only allocated 15% of the budget. </p></li>
<li><p>Less than 10% of the budget is allocated to families with income of $140,000 or more. </p></li>
<li><p>The impact of graduating without debt is much greater for families with smaller account, especially when considering the ability to pay. </p></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>The impact of graduating without debt is much greater for families with smaller account, especially when considering the ability to pay.</li>
</ol>
<p>Point taken. Except...that the impact on who actually accepts offers at admission is likely much greater among those in the higher range of those offered aid. 15% of the aid budget to those with incomes of $120k or more translates to 25% or more of those requiring aid </p>
<p>It is also true that the Pell Grant portion of Princeton's "aid class" has grown, I think at approximately the same rate that the upper portion has. Still I think they are to be applauded for the effort. (The effect, though, is to reduce further the percentage from the broad middle class - $40k-$90k incomes - there's no such thing as a free lunch - and if I were Princeton, I'd probably do the same.)</p>
<p>While it is true that 55% of new freshman at Princeton received need-based aid, the mix of students is still similar to those who receive aid at, say, Claremont-McKenna (although we don't know anything about the students who do not receive aid.) At CMC, 47% received need-based aid. But of the 2007 applicants offered aid, a total of 337, 168 out of them - or half - had incomes above $90k, and 55 (or 16.3%) above $150k. 60 had incomes under $40k (17.8%), the rest (25.8%) represented the broad middle class, with $40k -90k incomes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the new, what is essentially merit aid policy at Harvard (whereby students with family incomes below a certain amount paying nothing despite the fact that their EFC is not $0), is an attempt to keep them as well, once accepted.
[/quote]
How on earth is this merit aid? There's absolutely no distinction made between admitted students based on comparative merit. It's completely determined by financial situation.</p>
<p>When it come to education financial aid, the upper-middle class gets soaked. Let's not forget that for most of these families, EFC is met with loans. Then the school financial aid package has a fat loan built in. The poor don't have to pay and the rich write a check.</p>